Humor: scrutinizing the candidates

[Prometheus]

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

Even if you made this comment in jest, I do not understand it.

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

 

[Gokul43201]

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's Scarborough Country) and (FOX's) Bill O'Reilly call themselves moderates.

They're not really journalists, but this seems to suggest to me that more conservatives prefer to call themselves moderates.

Or am I the only one that thinks the above two (esp. Joe) are NOT moderates ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

One man makes a movie that you do not like.

First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors.

Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

This article suggests that many of the self described moderates may actually be...sssshhh! closet liberals.
www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p2.asp - 32k

 

[russ_watters]

Even if you made this comment in jest, I do not understand it.

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy. Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

Yeah, I considered that too, but I don't know. If so, that's dishonest, but not a flat-out lie. Wait, who were we talking about again?

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's Scarborough Country) and (FOX's) Bill O'Reilly call themselves moderates.

They're not really journalists, but this seems to suggest to me that more conservatives prefer to call themselves moderates.

Two examples does not equal a pattern. I would expect to find the opposite.

 

[Prometheus]

First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors.

Please provide here a few of the most significant factual errors that you noticed.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

Please explain this in plain English. You might understand what you mean, but there is no way that I can understand how this follows unless you explain it.

 

[Prometheus]

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if a person watches Moore's film and also hears Limbaugh speak, then that alone is enough to qualify the person as a hypocrit if her were to complain about either one of them? How does this follow? Please define hypocrisy so that I can understand how you consider it to apply in this context.

Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

What are you saying? No people who call themselves Democrats have any right at all to complain about anyone who calls himself Republican, no matter how dumb he may think that person, and your reasoning for this is that some guy named Moore made a film that you don't like? I now understand how some religious people think that all mankind are hopeless sinners due to the sins of the first man. That is the argument that you are making, isn't it? Unbelievable??

 

[JohnDubYa]

Please provide here a few of the most significant factual errors that you noticed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

Please explain this in plain English. You might understand what you mean, but there is no way that I can understand how this follows unless you explain it.

Criticizing Rush Limbaugh for distorting the truth, then supporting Moore when he does the same. I think the inconsistency is obvious.

 

[Prometheus]

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

Please explain this in plain English. You might understand what you mean, but there is no way that I can understand how this follows unless you explain it.

Criticizing Rush Limbaugh for distorting the truth, then supporting Moore when he does the same. I think the inconsistency is obvious.

To you it is obvious that such people are hypocrites because they support Moore yet criticize Bush. Look at the complete set of our postings on this topic above. In the very first post, I made it clear that such people were not involved in making the film. Nowhere did I, and nowhere did you, claim that these people had watched the film or that they had agreed with it. You made that assumption all on your own, never bothered to tell me until several posts later, and just started throwing out the word hypocrite. I think that we can never agree on anything if you are thinking about critical points that are never made.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

I went to this entry level site and read the one linked article that I could find. It has nothing to do with what you say. All links from that page are similar. If you have a link to a page that supports what you say, please provide me a link directly to a page. Anyway, I asked you what you claim are important points where Moore lied. Can you provide me with some in your own words?

 

[JohnDubYa]

To you it is obvious that such people are hypocrites because they support Moore yet criticize Bush.

I thought we were talking about the criticism leveled at Rush Limbaugh?

Look at the complete set of our postings on this topic above. In the very first post, I made it clear that such people were not involved in making the film. Nowhere did I, and nowhere did you, claim that these people had watched the film or that they had agreed with it. You made that assumption all on your own, never bothered to tell me until several posts later, and just started throwing out the word hypocrite.

I think it is obvious from the context that we were talking about people who saw the film and liked it. I mean, c'mon.

I went to this entry level site and read the one linked article that I could find. It has nothing to do with what you say. All links from that page are similar. If you have a link to a page that supports what you say, please provide me a link directly to a page.

You would not be satisfied with any link I provide, no matter how damning. I will leave it up to the rest of the readers on this board to read the link and decide for themselves if Moore is a complete fraud or not. I am not going on a wild goose chase hunting down information just so that you can say "That isn't enough."

Anyway, I asked you what you claim are important points where Moore lied. Can you provide me with some in your own words?

So you can come back and say "Well, that's just YOUR opinion"? I am not going to fall for that one. Just read the link -- the information is there. And if readers of this thread don't agree, they can say so.

And Balkan, we already know your answer. :)

 

[Njorl]

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

I think it is pretty darn clear that what Rush did to come up with the 80% number is tell an outright lie. When you read 34% liberal and say 80% liberal, it is called "lying". Thes lies he tells make his audience happy. The happy audience makes his ratings high. The high ratings make Rush rich. Is it really that hard?

Njorl

 

[Prometheus]

I think it is obvious from the context that we were talking about people who saw the film and liked it. I mean, c'mon.

If you look back at the very original phraseology, the word used was Democrats. This definition was never expanded, altered, or clarified, expect in your mind. How can you expect the rest of us to guess that the word Democrats does not mean "Democrats" but rather "all people who have watched and liked the Moore movie"? The only word used thus far has been Democrats. You insert a bizarre meaning to the word, and then suggest that everyone should realize what you mean by it. I mean c'mon.

You would not be satisfied with any link I provide, no matter how damning.

When I clicked on your link this morning, I went to a different page from yesterday, and this is the one that you were intending. I read it. There are some arguments that are worth considering. After all, there are certainly different takes on most ideas.

I have a question for you, and I would appreciate an honest answer. You said that you agree with the following, and that such people are hypocrits:

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Given that you agree with this, then you surely agree that all Republicans (and of course you realize that the word Republicans is obviously based on your definition, and refers to those people who have ever agreed with Limbaugh or like people) have no right to complain against Moore. After all, what is true for "Democrats" who like Moore is equally true for "Republicans" who like Limbaugh or like people. This is of course true, is it not? It would be hypocritical for people to believe otherwise, would it not?

Have you ever appreciated Limbaugh or like types? Don't you think that Republicans who complain about Moore's film are by their very act of complaining therefore hypocrits themselves?

 

[Prometheus]

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy. Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

You say that now that Moore has produced this film, all Democrats give up any right to complain.

In like manner, do you not also contend that due to the existence of Limbaugh all Republicans have long ago given up any right that they once had to complain?

Since you accuse all Democrats at the same time for the actions of a few, are you also implying that YOU no longer have any right to complain as you are in this thread, as that would be hypocritical?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You said that you agree with the following, and that such people are hypocrits:

Where did I agree with the statement? In fact, I pointed out an objection to the first line. You must have me confused with someone else.

So to clarify, here goes:

Those who saw the movie and liked it have no complaint about Rush Limbaugh.

There! That should settle the issue regarding my feelings.

 

[Prometheus]

Where did I agree with the statement?

See posting #33.

In fact, I pointed out an objection to the first line.

Where? I cannot find your objection, certainly not in #33.

You must have me confused with someone else.

OK. Am I wrong about your posting #33 and its contents?

So to clarify, here goes:

Those who saw the movie and liked it have no complaint about Rush Limbaugh.

There! That should settle the issue regarding my feelings.

Yes. Finally, you have made yourself clear. People who watch and like a movie that you feel contains factual errors have no right to complain against an obvious idiot. Fair enough.

One last set of questions: Have you listened to and have you ever appreciated anything said by Limbaugh? If so, do you feel that you would therefore have no complaint against Moore without being a hypocrit? If you like Limbaugh, which I do not know, would we all be justified in considering you a hyprocrit for having complained about Moore's film in this forum?

 

[JohnDubYa]

In fact, I pointed out an objection to the first line.

Where? I cannot find your objection, certainly not in #33.

The first line of my post states...

"First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors."


That was my objection to the first line.

Now read Post 38, where I clarified my stance:

Criticizing Rush Limbaugh for distorting the truth, then supporting Moore when he does the same. I think the inconsistency is obvious.

In other words, those that SUPPORT MOORE (and not just Democrats) are guilty of hypocrisy. (And how could you support Moore on this issue if you haven't seen the movie? Therefore, it was implied.)

[/quote]Yes. Finally, you have made yourself clear. People who watch and like a movie that you feel contains factual errors have no right to complain against an obvious idiot. Fair enough.[/quote]

I like the two statements: "... that I *feel* contains factual errors" and "... an *obvious* idiot." You couldn't write a fair sentence if you tried.

One last set of questions: Have you listened to and have you ever appreciated anything said by Limbaugh?

Straw man. Those who saw Moore's film and merely appreciated something that was in the movie -- as opposed to being a supporter -- are not the subjects of this thread.

Again, you continuously slant the emotion of language each time you describe Limbaugh and Moore in the same sentence. One's factual errors are just "perceived", the other's are "obvious."

Try to state a question that isn't loaded for a change.

 

[russ_watters]

Since you accuse all Democrats at the same time for the actions of a few, are you also implying that YOU no longer have any right to complain as you are in this thread, as that would be hypocritical?

If you consider what I'm doing complaining (about Moore's existence), go back and read my posts more carefully. I'm not a hypocrite (and not a Rush fan either). I said more than once that Moore is free to do his thing. My point was simply that you won't hear him ridiculed on the House floor for spewing deceitful propaganda like Rush has been. The double-standard exists on the left side of the fence.

edit: I think there is a reason for that too. The tendency of the media and entertainment industry to lean left gives those industries a perceived (by them, and by liberal politicians) edge in getting a liberal message out. When that edge is challenged, there is a backlash.

edit, edit: More on Moore - I'm not sure if I said it before, but I'm reading his book (borrowed it). I'm not finding anything in it - nothing I don't consider transparently deceitful, nor anything particularly compelling or profound. I really do admire his ability to get so much out of a dry well and am disappointed by those who can't see through him.

 

[russ_watters]

I went to this entry level site and read the one linked article that I could find. It has nothing to do with what you say. All links from that page are similar. If you have a link to a page that supports what you say, please provide me a link directly to a page. Anyway, I asked you what you claim are important points where Moore lied. Can you provide me with some in your own words?

The first sentence of the linked article:

In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush.

Again, sometimes the difference between "lie," "factual error," "propaganda," and "baseless inuendo" is tough to tell. Regardless of how you characterize the claim using those words, it was misleading and deceitful.

Now, I said before that Moore's talent is that he can be extremely deceitful without telling flat-out lies: taking $220 million and turning it into $1.4 billion is a good one, but whether its "just" a deception or actually a lie isn't a line I'm real concerned about.